Thursday, 24 May 2012

Pimpleman, A Very, Very Sick Man?

Besides the fact that they’re all shown in that priceless piece of evidence handed out on a silver platter to all of us by the Black Hats themselves that is commonly known as the “Mockumentary”, what is the single common characteristic between the Pimpleman sightings?

If you've answered that it’s the fact that he was seen at three different times by three different people in exact the same place, your answer is... wrong.

Yes, although it’s true that all three, JW, TS and Derek Flack say they have seen Pimpleman standing at the corner of the parking lot opposite the Tapas Complex Entrance, he has also been seen once by TS at the back of Apartment 5A and one other time by JW in Rua do Ramalhete.

He was seen a total of five times by those same three people.

He was seen staring at the Apartment 5A by four  and not the five witnesses (JW’s first sighting sees him staring somewhere else), so that also isn’t it.

As it isn’t the game “Now I see, now you don’t” played by both team “TS & Mum” and team “Derek Flack & Partner” because JW’s 3 yr old child can hardly be qualified as a “player”, so there's no "JW & Daughter" team...

So what is it? What is it that is common in all 5 sightings?

I’ve already given you a clue as to what it is in what I’ve written above but I’ll give you a further hint: it’s something so extraordinary that it can be decomposed into two subsequent remarkable phenomena.

And it's something so important that it proves that Pimpleman, if he exists, suffers from such a serious handicap that accusing him of abducting Maddie is not only ridiculous as is cruel beyond any human expression as the poor man would be unable to abduct a parrot even if it landed on his shoulder.

Have you found the answer? No? Then I’ll tell you what it is: in all the five sightings he’s staring obsessively.

To understand the importance of this fact, let me do two experiments with you.

Experiment 1 - Staring

For this experiment you're only required to have a couch, as comfortable as possible, a TV and a timer.

The timer has to be placed outside the line of sight between the couch and the TV Set, but near enough to enable you, with just one quick look, to see what time it’s marking, allowing you to calculate, at any moment, how much time is there still left until end of the experiment.

During the experiment other people and any pets may enter and exit the room as they usually do, so don’t tell them you’re undergoing an experiment, nor ask from them any special behavior.

Set the timer for 15 minutes, sit comfortably in the couch and stare at the TV Set, which is switched OFF.

You’re not allowed to look at ANY other object in the room, just at the TV’s blank screen until the timer sounds. If your eyesight as so much moves away from it, such as taking a peek at the timer, do restart the experiment all over again.

Were you able to do it? Very much doubt it as looking at an inanimate object is as exciting as looking at... an inanimate object.

In fact nothing could define better boredom. The mind needs to be occupied, and staring at something you know won’t move or provide any sort of novelty requires a degree of concentration that is physically tiring.

Pimpleman is said to have been seen five times staring fixedly at something, in such a focused and concentrated manner that he doesn’t move his eyes from it even when people pass by him.

Three people say that happened on five occasions, can you believe it?

Add to all that the fact that Pimpleman isn’t, unlike you,  under any sort of experimentation, and could, if he wanted to, look somewhere else from time to time.

So the first decomposition of the “staring obsessively” statement that we can make is that Pimpleman has this uncommon capability of observing fixedly inanimate objects for abnormally long periods of time.

Let’s move on to the second experiment

Experiment 2 - Reflexes

For this experiment all you need a friend with a lighter.

You simply stick one of your fingers out and your friend moves the flame towards the tip of your finger.

The idea obviously is NOT for you to get burned, but to verify that, as expected, you’ll withdraw your hand in a sudden and involuntary motion, as a reflex to a violent stimulus.

The key word here is “involuntary”. It’s an unavoidable reflex.

In Wikipedia you find two interrelated topics about this: “withdrawal reflex” and “pain withdrawal reflex”.

About the “withdrawal reflex” it says the following:

The withdrawal reflex (...) is a spinal reflex intended to protect the body from damaging stimuli. (…) When a person touches a hot object and withdraws their hand from it without thinking about it

About the pain withdrawal reflex, the following:

"The pain withdrawal reflex is an involuntary action in which the body reacts to pain by trying to move itself away from the source of the pain, to reduce or even eliminate that pain.

Although this is a reflex, there are two interesting aspects: (1) the body can be trained to over-ride that reflex; and (2) an unconscious body (or even drunk or drugged bodies) will not exhibit the reflex.

There are various kinds of involuntary reactions, or responses, to different stimuli. The flame experiment is but an example.

The one we intend to focus on today is what may be called as the ”looking back reflex”. It's those times when you feel someone is looking at you and you instinctively respond, even if for just a glance, by looking back at the person that’s looking at you.

It’s something we all do in crowded places, a non-aggressive attitude that it’s done to acknowledge that we’ve been looked at or, when we're the ones initiating it, to gather a situation awareness of both our surroundings as well as of those surrounding us.

There are those unpleasant occasions when a stranger “stares us down”.  This is quite aggressive and pretends to be domineering. The smartest thing to do in such situations is to avoid looking back.

What is important to retain and understand is that independent of if you’re reacting to someone who has just looked at you for an instant or to someone who is aggressively staring, the feeling of a stranger’s eyes on you is something that doesn’t go unnoticed.

It’s almost a physical thing, if it’s not indeed so. How many times have we turned our heads just because we had a feeling that someone was looking at us? We've all done that.

Another natural involuntary reflex is to react to movement. We naturally follow with our eyes anything that moves anywhere near and around us. It’s a natural defensive mechanism whereby we unconsciously evaluate the need, or not, to react to this new stimulus. It's something that we do, again, without thinking.

If we're to join the fact of somebody moving towards or near us with the fact that same person is looking at us, it’s almost impossible NOT to instinctively look back at that person.

So the second decomposition of Pimpleman’s “staring obsessively” statement is: he also has this uncommon capability of observing fixedly inanimate objects without deviating his eyes from his objective regardless of whatever may be happening around him.

I don’t think there’s a Yoga Master in the world that can match Pimpleman when it comes to concentration and self-alienation from surrounding reality.

But do notice that I just used the expression “almost impossible not to instinctively look”, didn’t I?. The word “almost” is of capital importance.

Let me repeat what Wikipedia says: “Although this is a reflex, there are two interesting aspects: (1) the body can be trained to over-ride that reflex; and (2) an unconscious body (or even drunk or drugged bodies) will not exhibit the reflex.”

It doesn’t take much training to “avoid looking”, does it? It’s a physical voluntary action by which you force your eyes to continue looking somewhere, contradicting the natural instinct of looking where you don’t want to look.

It’s like grabbing an nonexistent cylinder through which you’re looking at a certain moment, and reaching for every possible available spanners, nuts and screws, and tightly bolt the "thing" into place so it can't possibly budge even an inch.

It’s very uncomfortable situation and is one that you just want to get out of as quickly as possible.

But to pretend not see somebody it’s absolutely necessary that there’s a somebody that you don't want to see and that you pretend not to see. There’s no element of surprise.

The surprise may have happened when you first saw the undesired person and that you quickly looked away from before s/he was able to see you. But you looked. You saw him. You know the person is there. The element of surprise made you look and the fact that you're no longer surprised has allowed you to "avoid looking".

There’s no reason for Pimpleman to avoid looking at any of the three witnesses. He supposedly doesn’t know any of them. They appear before him surprisingly and he certainly is not trying to go unnoticed to anyone.

But the fact is that in five times out of five he doesn’t look back at any of the three witnesses, does he? We have written confirmation of that from two of those witnesses, TS and Derek Flack, in the PJ Files.

On Wednesday 2007/05/09, TS has this to say about her first sighting of Pimpleman: “...the man didn't see the deponent, because he was staring at the balcony” and about the second time... and saw the man, this time in front of the 'Ocean Club's' reception, once more looking at Madeleine's house in an ostensive manner (...) That as she was walking up she walked right in front of the man, and observed him directly, an action that he did not retaliate, because he never looked at the deponent.

On Saturday 2007/05/06, Derek Flack says the following “Therefore, refers having realized that the individual above referenced observed fixedly the area in question, being very concentrated on his objective, to the point of not even having detected the presence of the herein deponent.

It's absolutely clear what has happened between Pimpleman and with these two people. But this only accounts for two of the total of three witnesses and for three of five sightings.

What about JW and her two sightings?

Well we don’t have anything about JW and her sightings in the PJ Files, do we? We’ll speak about that in a later post, but for now all we have is what we can see in the Mockumentary in which both her sightings were reconstructed in detail.

I’ll start with the second one, because the all the relevant information is in the first.

In the second, as can be seen, JW looks at Pimpleman, and Pimpleman remains looking elsewhere. So we’re to assume that much like it happened with TS and Derek Flack, Pimpleman didn’t see “the deponent” also this time.

But let’s look at the reconstruction of JW's first sighting. First we have to thank Edgar and his board to understand where it happened:

I can’t see any connection between this man, where he was seen, what he was doing and Maddie’s alleged abduction.

In fact, one of the biggest Mockumentary’s mysteries is where exactly is Pimpleman fixing his observation during JW's first sighting:

He's just looking down a deserted street, but he's certainly observing fixedly something as the sequence shows:

He doesn’t for one second move his eyesight from wherever he’s looking at, which is extraordinary, to say the least.

But if you look attentively at the sequence, maybe the solution to the mysteries of this character will unfold before your eyes.

Below, Pimpleman as he appears in all the photos of the sequence above:

As you can see, he’s as inanimate as any switched off TV set or apartment building. A woman and a child pass by him on a deserted street and he doesn’t move a facial muscle, much less a neck one to move his head. He just keeps on looking at... nowhere.

Completely and totally alienated from reality around him, isn’t he?

I have an explanation as to why: autism!

Pimpleman is autistic! That would explain why he doesn’t look at JW twice, doesn't look the exact same amount of times at TS, and doesn't look at Derek Flack although this man passes no further than a foot right in front of him. By the way, as it happens with JW on her first sighting, with Derek Flack, Pimpleman also stares pointlessly, but obsessively at an empty street...

This would explain all, except one thing. Why accuse a person with special needs with such a heinous crime? Have these people no conscience?

Or maybe Pimpleman is just drunk or drugged... I know I'd drink myself silly if I had to participate in the horrid "Mockumentary"...


  1. Firstly, I appreciate the commitment to observe all the details. You do a great job.

    My answer will not reach the excellence.

    Can I start by saying that they spent money in production, the actors, travel and lodging. Cash who?

    JW is contemplative artist and as such may observe everything as if it were a still life.

    TS was (is) a child whose father or mother are devoted to alternative therapies.

    In another post, The Sisters said D.F. was inattentive. Perhaps the script is very primary for him? Or DF have attention deficit?

    And because the script is the primary Edgar was sent home with a commitment to a vow of silence, as certain religious orders.

    The Pimple does not exist;

    The Pimple was doing a contest of man statue;

    The Pimple wanted a meeting with the K8;

    The McPimple only exists in this documentary and with friends couple ´s testimonials

    This McPimple here is fiction.

    McPimple is pure fiction.

  2. The statements of all this witnesses show two main things:

    1- pimple man has all time in the world and an absolute unneed of work/ money, if we consider the amount of time this witnesses keep him watching foccus and attentively, a wall. That contradicts Gerry statement of a musician who according to the type of job, has no salary and no working time and needs to play on the streets to survive. Then, his revenue depends directly from the effort and the time he spend working. MORE TIME= more work= MORE TIME ON THE STREETS. In mathematical world, what's the probability of having a guy with conditions of the musician wasting such amount of time, watching the flat of a girl in open view, to later kill her and snatch a body from the flat? ALMOST ZERO.
    2- A bunch of witnesses who apparently were not related with each other, sharing the same hobby. They all act like bees around the same flower, going up and down the streets that surround the 5a, many times in two days. Wonder how that witnesses don't bump one on each other, due to the intense traffic in a so narrow location, and having to overtake an obstacle ( pimple man). What is the probability of having such situation? Almost ZERO.
    But I know, where I find an inspiration very similar and sharing the same probabilities- the timeline of the Tapas 9 for the night of May 3 and the checking on Mccann's children. Wasn't amazing that two other couples had small children left alone on the flats, but their statements only speak about the checkings on the little Mccann's? Wonder how the Paynes were comfortable with idea of leaving the protection of their baby with the baby monitor, having to walk a long distance if they notice a strange noise... When they arrive will be too late. But the most amazing is that the only child that disappeared was the most controlled. Again the statistic shows us how little is the probability of that to happen.
    On the other hand and applying the same method: When we see all that situations associated with same group and the same event, the probability of having huge lies here is very high. They all know each other and the lies were planned and deliberately delivered to the police.

  3. The second comment is very interesting statistic in terms either by humor. Although theSubject Mc is serious enough.

    They are ridiculously dangerous and everyone knows it.

    But just here, you do the dismantling. Do not give up because this work deserves value; an immense value.

    The Mc actors belong to a number of people almost unknown on the whole.

    And, besides the girl, the first victim, how many victims have already there?
    How many are the victims who have been damaged with their lives?

  4. I am very sorry for all the Englishmen who only read headlines and tabloid photos.

    Daily Fail is where the tabloid soap operas that go look and want a life like duchesses.

    The K8 was very poorly dressed up but the people even like to see and think that one day will be like her. Some women have thought and copied the lie that she created. Some go to prison but she or run, or travels or goes to the duchesses.

  5. A Father of Portugal, who does not know the child with 22 years old , because he threw off the bridge into the Danube River as a challenge, a game of vertigo (ilinx). He said no hurry to find his son's body. This i can understand very well, of course.

    He holds out hope that his son is alive and has even been kidnapped.

    And I do not say more.

    But the story reminded me another campaign and I swear it has nothing to do with the Rui Pedro´s case .

  6. The Portuguese Young Man who was doing Erasmus in Budapest University of Technology and Economics,jumped, by 5:30 a.m. the past 11 days, the Erzsébet Bridge (Elisabeth, Empress Sissiwho became known as Austria and Hungary) with the intent to swim to a pre arrangedpoint on the shore, but disappeared without a trace.

    Parents were not "rush to find bodies" natural course.
    Now they have this certainty.

    Although all of us thought this would be the obvious unfortunately.

    The infamous couple of UK know well that the body of the girl will never be found.

    Hence the famous phrase "find the body and prove that ............."

  7. Bom dia a good day to all!

    Acerca de G.F. que DEP - RIP.

    Vi entrevista com os Seus Pais na TV . Realmente não tinham pressa de encontrar o corpo apenas por esperança .

    Mas a campanha que fizeram foi igual à de...........
    O porquê imagino. Penso que com GF também foi construída uma campanha em tudo semelhante à de.........

    Bom, mais não comento. E que GF que voou primeiro para o Rio tenha voado para um lugar bonito.

  8. Mais uma historia triste em que uma crianca parece ter sido vitima da propria mae:

    Uma adolescente alema com 19 anos foi libertada depois de um casal a ter mantido em cativeiro por 8 anos, na Bosnia.
    A Jovem foi mantida como escrava e abusada por amigos do casal. Comia milho e abobora destinada aos porcos. Quem a tera levado para a Bosnia e entregue ao casal, tera sido a propria mae que mantinha um casemento ficticio com o homem que a escravizou. A mae estava nas imediacoes quando a policia a libertou.
    Fonte: toda a imprensa portuguesa.

    Que perversidade, a desta mae. Mais uma historia a provar que Quem faz mal as criancas e quem facilmente tem acesso elas e tem o dever de as proteger- a familia.
    Nao ha estranhos a entrar em quartos para levarem meninas sem deixar rasto. Os estranhos, Sao por vezes aqueles em quem as criancas Mais confiam, e que um dia, estranhamente, se comportam como ESTRANHOS de verdade.

  9. Bom dia!

    O Pimple esqueceu-se de participar no 16º encontro de estátuas vivas de Espinho atraiu milhares de curiosos.

    Falta a foto dele. Os Mcs esqueceram-se ou não sabiam do concurso?

  10. Se fosse há uns tempos, os Mcs já se tinham colado ao caso mesmo antes de saberem da cumplicidade da progenitora; tal como fizeram com outros casos.

    E a K8 e a Karen M. ...... uma na tv e em viagens mais no n.º 10 ; a última foi para a prisão.

    O silêncio McC está a ser muito. Ou por " conselho" de modo a este escândalo ser esquecido ou para atacarem de repente sem o conhecimento do público via imprensa.

  11. Boa tarde!

    No Reino de Sua Majestade andam a acontecer -novamente- coisas estranhas:

    Former newspaper proprietor E. S. is charged with child sex offences by London's Metropolitan Police.

    Parece andarem a varrer o que já devia ter sido varrido ou então é mais uma à ore.

    Vá-se lá saber.

    Parece que BBC vai deixar novidades.

  12. Detido ex-director de comunicação de David Cameron

    30 de Maio, 2012- in Sol online

    O antigo principal conselheiro para os media de David Cameron foi detido por alegadamente ter prestado falsas declarações no âmbito do processo das escutas ilegais ao serviço de tablóides ingleses.
    Andy Coulson, ex-editor do agora extinto News of The World, foi detido na sua casa em Londres sob a acusação de falso testemunho num dos processos que está a aser julgado no Supremo Tribunal de Glasgow.

    Coulson saiu do cargo de director de comunicação de Cameron em 2011 depois do escândalo das escutas ilegais a serviço do seu antigo jornal.

    (E quando e que investigam os McCann, Mitchell, mccournalistas do the Sun e Mais alguns BHs por terem oficial e deliberadamente presenteado o caso Maddie com fabricacoes e falsidades que perverteram a investigacao e impediram o normal funcionamento da justica?


    (Shocking if this parents are really responsible for the death of their 6 children.
    Very relevant the words of the police in charged with investigation: ...'After the parents were arrested yesterday, Derbyshire assistant chief constable Steve Cotterill appealed for the local community to help officers work out why the fire was started.
    He said: ‘In view of the arrests, I would urge anyone who may have been holding back, not felt comfortable to voice their concerns or not had the confidence, to do so now.
    ‘It may well be that you have a little bit of loyalty to family or friends. I would ask you to put that aside in memory of those six children.’

    This words should be applied also to the Mccann's in memory of Madeleine.

    Who said that parents are not good actor's? Shameful video of tears and a lot of thankful words to everybody else, but not a single word dedicate to the childs that lost their lives. Again, a couple inspired on the Mccann's trademark- HOLDING HANDS like lovebirds.
    Wonder about the skills of a father of 17 children from 5 womans, who sleeps in a caravan when his chidren were burning out inside the house.'


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.